The terms are as I stated them to the House on 25 January. Staff who do not wish to continue to serve at GCHQ have been offered the opportunity of seeking a transfer to another part of the Civil Service. As I informed the House at the time:
Every effort will be made to transfer to other departments staff who are unwilling to remain in GCHQ under the new conditions. GCHQ will continue to employ them while this is being done. Staff for whom it proves impossible to arrange a transfer to another Department will be eligible for premature retirement on redundancy terms." —[Official Report, 25 January 1984: Vol.52; c. 920.]

The position for those who refuse to move to an alternative suitable post is as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe), the Minister of State, Treasury, in his reply to a question from the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). In accordance with the normal procedures, and as was made clear on 25 January, they will not be treated as redundant nor be entitled to any compensation.

The existing conditions of service relating to redundancy provide that a civil servant who refuses to move to a suitable post anywhere in the country, in the case of a mobile officer, and anywhere within daily travelling distance of his home, in the case of a non-mobile officer, is treated to all intents and purposes as though he had resigned.

I must say that that is among the nost brazen, unrepentant and incompetent responses that I have ever heard from a Minister. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has admitted to the House that he completely failed to describe a central fact in his statement of 25 January. Is it not incredible that in his statement to the House on 25 January, and as recently as last night on "TV Eye", he thought that there were only three options available to civil servants at GCHQ, and seemed to be utterly unaware of the fourth and critical penal option which he has just spelt out to the House? Will he confirm that, as a result of signing that they have read and understood general notice 100, which has been issued by the director of GCHQ, if the staff at GCHQ do not leave the union, or will not accept the upheaval of transfer, they become subject to possible instant dismissal or, as it says in the notice,
notice at the discretion of the director."?
If it is instant dismissal, that means without any pay beyond the date of dismissal. As a result of instant dismissal the staff will lose any rights to redundancy pay, premature pension and any annual leave that is owed to them, for pay in lieu of that leave.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that it is not, as some of the press have suggested, just a few people who have been caught in the miserable quandary of having to choose between abandoning their principles and leaving their trade union, and accepting domestic upheaval with a transfer or seeing their careers and livelihoods absolutely destroyed? Far from being a few,
526
as this is a specialist union there are over 3,500 civil servants in the relevant grades at GCHQ who are under the Government's blackmail threat. It is in an area where there are virtually no alternative Civil Service jobs available anyhow.

They do not get redundancy, that is the point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has just spelt that out. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that he stands condemned because he not only misled the House—we accept completely that that was inadvertent —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

It was ignorant but inadvertent. Ignorance is an offence as well. As importantly, he has revealed a level of incompetence that would be unforgiveable in the greenest and newest of Under-Secretaries of State. That is especially unforgiveable in a man of his legal distinction, when one considers the consequences for the lives of thousands of civil servants who have committed no offence other than to have the misfortune to be employed in the Department of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is the head.

I repudiate absolutely the charges that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. One thing should first be made clear, that the question as put to me on television last night was not the question put to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury and answered by him in the House yesterday—

—and the television company concerned has apologised for having put the question in an inaccurate way. The question gave a wholly misleading impression of what my hon. Friend had said. What I explained in answer to the question and what I explain again now is the range of options that is open. People will either be able, if they accept the terms as changed, to remain at GCHQ in their present posts on their present terms apart from that change. If they are unwilling to do that, then they have the option of moving to a suitable alternative job within the Civil Service.

That option arises in two forms. If a civil servant is a mobile officer, he is required to move anywhere in the country. In those circumstances, he will receive the normal compensation for disturbance that is available under Civil Service terms. If he is a non-mobile officer, the option is to take up an alternative job that is available within daily travelling distance. All these three options are open either to those who accept the terms or to those who do not wish to accept the terms, who have the option of going somewhere else.

But if it is impossible to find a suitable alternative job for them under either of those conditions, the option of redundancy arises—in other words, if no such job can be found for them. But if, having had a suitable alternative job offered to them away from their original place of employment—if that is what they choose—they refuse to take that job, then, as was made clear in a notice issued to the staff on 25 January, they can—

That is perfectly logical. There are available to them the options of continuation in their present terms of employment that are comparable to those available in comparable intelligence agencies, or the option of transfer on the lines that I have described to suitable alternative employment. It is only if they refuse those options that the last situation arises. If there is no job that can be found for them of a suitable kind—if in that sense it proves impossible for a job to be found—then, as I explained in my statement last week, in those circumstances very generous redundancy terms are, of course, available.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this hare will not run for long because there is no dichotomy between the statements of my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury? My hon. Friend was talking about the case of a civil servant who refuses to move, which the vast majority of civil servants are obliged to do under their contract of service. My right hon. and learned Friend was talking about the civil servant for whom there is no alternative employment. It must be realised that there are few alternative jobs where perfect Byelorussian is necessary and the person for whom no alternative employment can be found is entitled to full trade union rights in terms of redundancy.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If no suitable alternative employment can be found within the ordinary rules prevailing for civil servants, whether in the mobile grades requiring mobility or the non-mobile grades requiring acceptance of a job within ordinary travel distance, and it is impossible to arrange a suitable transfer, redundancy terms will become available. But those who decide that they cannot stay at GCHQ and be subject to the changes being made there and refuse a suitable alternative job of the kind that I have described will, as was explained to them at the time, be treated as having terminated their employment.

As it is now clear that it was never necessary to go down the path that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has pursued—if only he had discussed it all with the trade unions in the first place—has not it also become clear that the Foriegn Secretary has handled the matter in an absolutely shambolic way? In view of the unnecessary withdrawal of rights and, much more serious, the damage that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing to national security in having this whole issue brought under public scrutiny, has not the time come for him to resign and hand over his portfolio to someone who can carry it out properly?

I totally reject the hon. Member's suggestion. The operations of GCHQ had remained unavowed and unacknowledged until my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement on 12 May last year, putting them on the record.

Following my right hon. Friend's statement and after careful consideration by Ministers, the decision was made to take the steps that I announced to the House on 25 January. In all the subsequent discussion, it has become clearer and clearer, rather than the reverse, that that decision was absolutely right.

The conditions and objectives that we set ourselves—first, the absolute guarantee of non-disturbance and non-disruption of GCHQ, secondly, the absolute guarantee of non-intrusion by reference to industrial tribunals, thirdly, the availability of a staff association, the officers of which owe their obligations to those employed at GCHQ, and not to any outside organisation and, finally, as a result of all that, the removal of any conflict between the loyalty to the state, honourably discharged thus far at GCHQ, and some other, outside loyalty—remain absolutely crucial. They are objectives which the certificates that I have issued were designed to achieve. We have not been persuaded, and it has not been suggested, that those objectives can be fulfilled in any other way.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that "TV Eye" had to apologise for misrepresenting the views of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury? Is it not the case, and does not this matter most to the workers concerned, that no one need fear that he will lack either a job or redundancy?

Will my right hon. and learned Friend also confirm that the Prime Minister will be meeting the unions again? If so, would not a little restraint and patience be in order on the Opposition Benches or should not Opposition Members at least get their act together and make up their minds whether they are genuinely indignant or wish to treat this important matter affecting the security of the nation as a joke?

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) is absolutely right. As has already been made clear, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be meeting the trade union representatives again, following the meeting that we held on Wednesday. The terms available to the people employed at GCHQ are exactly as I have described them, with the options that I have described. It is indeed the case that the question put to me on television last night gave a totally misleading impression of what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the House yesterday, and I have received an apology for that.

In view of the statements that have already been made and the Foreign Secretary's statements on television last night, will he confirm that the no-strike clause offer is and will remain non-negotiable? If that is so, will the Foreign Secretary explain to the House, in view of all the statements that have been made, the basis on which he was able to offer £1,000 to any trade unionist who withdrew his trade union membership? For what reason was that compensatory payment offered?

The compensatory payment was offered because, as a result of the certificate issued on 25 January and the changes in conditions of service then being implemented, a change was taking place and certain statutory rights were being withdrawn from those
529
employed at GCHQ. It was thought right, and I see no reason to doubt the judgment, to offer compensation of that order to those affected.

As for the no-strike agreement, the hon. Member misunderstands the importance and nature of what is required at GCHQ. What is universally acknowledged to be required is 24-hour reliability, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year—reliability that GCHQ will be free from disruption of any kind and free from the threats of disruption or conflicts of loyalty being placed on the people who work there. It was just that conflict of loyalty which was created by the action taken on the day of action in 1981 and it is because of that conflict of loyalty that measures of this kind are necessary. It is for just that reason that the power to issue certificates finds a place on the statute book.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this sad affair exemplifies the need for the establishment by the House of a small Select Committee of suitably qualified Privy Councillors who can take evidence from appropriate persons, in this case my right hon. and learned Friend as Foreign Secretary, and report to the House? It is an esoteric and all too closed field and our system of parliamentary democracy would be enhanced if we had such a Select Committee to scrutinise it.

I have no evidence that any such rush is taking place. It is clear that the reasons underlying the decision taken by the Government and announced by me on 25 January are becoming more plainly and widely understood and that the decision is regarded as essential.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, bearing in mind that in 1981 the Council of Civil Service Unions said that it was not just interested in hampering defence and trading relations, but that its ultimate success depended on that, it would have been the height of irresponsibility for the Government not to have taken the action that they did? The unions have only themselves to blame, as do Opposition Members who encouraged the unions in their attitude.

As the House has already heard, in 1980 the suggestion of a no-strike agreement was made locally and rejected by the unions. As the House has heard several times, in 1981 it was a deliberate part of union policy to provoke disruption in this crucially sensitive area and that was something on which the unions were prepared to congratulate themselves. It was for that reason that the matter had to receive consideration.

On what date was this supposed conflict of loyalty discovered by the Government? On what date did the Cabinet discuss it? On what date did the Government decide to take action about it? Did they decide, as has been suggested in some quarters, to postpone action for some months, despite the supposed danger to the state, because they thought that it might suit them politically? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the dates when the Government discovered this great danger to the state and when they took action on the basis of that information?

There was no question of discovering this great danger to the state. The great danger to the state was avowed, asserted and relied upon by the unions when they were seeking to create disruptive action in GCHQ. That was on the day of action in 1981.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made plain in her statements last week, on 12 May last year, when a general election had already been declared but was not taking place, having received the report of the Security Commission on the Prime case, the Prime Minister made a statement on the case. In the course of that statement my right hon. Friend avowed, acknowledged and explained to the House for the first time the functions and purposes of GCHQ. It was only after that that a fresh consideration, which necessarily had to happen after the election, of all these matters occurred in the months after the election and the decision was announced to the House last week.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many who believe that the Government are entirely right to attach the highest priority to national security nevertheless are disturbed by some of the implications of today's statement? Does he accept that it is perfectly possible that many of those who accept his terms will retain a perfectly proper, firm and loyal relationship with their trade union and will still have an inward allegiance to it? Bearing that in mind, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the prudence of an agreement whereby, although forbidden to take part in trade union activities, it will be possible for them to retain trade union membership?

That has been considered, of course, but it was thought right and necessary to take the action provided for in the statute by issuing a certificate under the 1975 and 1978 employment protection legislation withdrawing the application of those provisions
531
from this work in this institution. It was following the precedent plainly established for other intelligence agencies where similar conditions applied.

Is it not totally incredible that if a danger to the state was suspected from 1981 onwards nothing was done until now and that in the meantime, during those three years, no negotiations or discussions took place? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that, if industrial managements behaved in this way, there would rightly be an uproar about the way in which employees were being treated, their terms of employment being changed unilaterally by diktat? Does not he feel that for those employees who for family reasons, their children's education, and so on, may want to stay in their jobs and remain members of their trade unions it is a disgrace that there should not be compensation?

The position is that those who do not wish to accept the offer of remaining on the present terms and conditions of service have available the option of transfer to suitable alternative employment in accordance with their terms of service. Where that proves impossible, compensation on redundancy terms is available to them. It is only if they decline to accept transfer to an available place that the cessation of employment arises.

In considering yet again the question raised by the hon. Gentleman — the timing and manner in which the decision was taken — there had to be balanced the manifest danger to our security operations of the industrial disruption which took place and was threatened and the danger of avowing this institution which existed until May 1983. It was after that that the matter came up for fresh consideration and, after balancing all the factors very carefully, it was decided to make use of the existing statutory powers in the way in which they had already been applied to other intelligence agencies.

Order. I remind the House that we are interrupting a very important debate initiated by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I shall allow supplementary questions to continue until half-past 11.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the fact that the TV company apologised for a sloppy if not mischievous piece of journalism—an apology, incidentally, still awaited by some of my hon. Friends for the fabrications, half-truths and ill-fitting photo-montage of the "Panorama" programme on Monday — and the fact that the civil servants concerned are being offered the terms in their contract of alternative employment elsewhere and only in cases of refusal will be without compensation, demonstrate that there are no grounds for the spurious indignation shown by the Opposition and for the quite unjustified attack upon my right hon. and learned Friend?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Those responsible for the television programme concerned with this matter have apologised. Those responsible for the television programme about which my hon. Friend complains have not yet apologised. The contrast may speak for itself.

532
I cannot repeat too often what is the present position. The people employed at GCHQ have the option of remaining in employment in their present jobs and accepting the compensation which has been offered or the option, in accordance with their existing terms and conditions of service, of alternative jobs, within travelling distance or not as the case may be. If no such suitable alternative jobs can be found, compensation on redundancy terms of a very generous quality is available. It is only if, in face of all those options, they still decline suitable alternative jobs that they themselves terminate their employment. That is a very wide range of options and a very effective and comprehensive range of options. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no ground for the criticism which has been made.

The question has not arisen during that time because there has been no question during that period, under the previous terms of service, of looking for suitable alternative jobs. It is now acknowledged universally that this is the basis upon which the trade unions are now making some of their offers. It is acknowledged universally that the guarantees of uninterrupted, continuous, undisrupted service which the Government require at GCHQ and which were seriously jeopardised and broken in 1981 are essential for national security. It is of the greatest importance that this debate from now on should be conducted upon that common ground.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House until yesterday knew that mobile grades could be required to transfer to different posts or establishments and that if there was a breach in that, many people in the codification authorities, and others, who were having to move because of Hardman, would want to say that this should apply to them as well? Will my right hon. and learned Friend also accept that, as some doubt arose yesterday, it has been characteristically courteous of him to come to the House and make it clear that there has been no change? Is it not right that the Opposition Front Bench should accept that, as there is no change, this narrow issue has been dealt with and that the other issues involved can be considered on another occasion?

I was delighted to respond to this private notice question — alert, as always, to clarify these matters by coming to the House. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) is equally important. But if we departed from the principles which I have described and which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) described yesterday — the principles which
533
apply to mobiles and non-mobiles respectively—there would be very serious consequences elsewhere in the service.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise, even at this stage, that the manner in which this matter was brought to the House originally was reprehensible, disgraceful, belated and without any excuse or explanation that can place any validity on what he has said since?

Does he not recognise, further, that the terms which he has announced today are different from the treatment of people who betrayed our country and were protected by the Establishment?

My statement of 25 January was a statement about the changes being made and the reasons for them. The reasons given were precisely the same as those which have been repeated since, and which I have given today. Those reasons are now universally accepted as essential. There is no question about the need to make those changes in conditions at GCHQ. The case stands absolutely.

In underlining the fact that civil servants who transfer to other posts will be fully entitled to pursue their trade union activities, will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the trade unions have, in recent negotiations, made any offer to undertake a no-strike agreement elsewhere in the Civil Service of the type found in the United States which several Conservative Members would strongly like in Britain?

We have listened to the Foreign Secretary's answers. Every one of them, like his first answer, was bland, repetitive and utterly unconvincing as a response to the questions that have been asked. Worse, they have all been a complete evasion of the real issue at stake in the matter which my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) raised.

534
The Foreign Secretary speaks of merely applying conditions which apply to every civil servant, but in GCHQ Cheltenham there is no closure, no reduction, no redundancy, no promotion, no demotion and none of the conditions and circumstances which are covered by the usual arrangements for mobile grades in the Civil Service. Severance pay and conditions arise only because the Government are forcing the civil servants involved to surrender their civil rights. We now discover that, if they do not surrender those civil rights, they will lose their financial rights, their careers and their standing in the community. That is not a matter of usual practice but one of calculated victimisation of people against whom the Government are using the worst form of financial coercion. It smacks not merely of the dictatorial attitude of which I have accused the Government previously but, in this form, it is despotism—no more, no less.

The right hon. Gentleman has an almost infinite capacity for destroying such occasion as he has by exaggeration and hyperbole. I have never heard such extravagant and unjustified language applied to such events. Of course we care about civil rights. It is because of our concern for them that we attach such importance to the effective uninterrupted operation of this institution. That is why I came to the House to explain the position as I did on 25 January. [Interruption.] It is for that reason that we have made available the options that I have described. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to say that no redundancies are involved. On the face of it, therefore, the terms of retirement on a redundancy basis should not be available.

Because we are anxious to make available a full range of options of the type that I have described, retirement on redundancy terms, in the absence of a suitable alternative job in accordance with the ordinary rules, has been made available. The right hon. Gentleman's case simply will not wash.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you please confirm that the statement which we have just heard arose not voluntarily but because the Foreign Secretary was dragged here by a private notice question?